Here is the link to WH postage of the "long form" It doesn't say "African American" it says the father is African. It does use father's country of origin as Kenya which someone pointed out was a few years before the ever was a Kenya.

I am suspicious of this "form". Yet we will never know the truth or be allowed to find out if it is a real vs forged document.

Derrick Bell maintained throughout his life that racial minorities in the U.S. were a PERMANENTLY oppressed caste. Bell endorsed a journal called "Race Traitor," which is dedicated to the "abolition of whiteness," and whose motto is "Treason to the white race is loyalty to humanity." Obama's mentor and campaign advisor from 2008 has admitted they intentionally hid this video from the media during the 2008 campaign. Stay tuned - this is only the beginning of what Breitbart's staff has uncovered.

Our "mainstream" media has failed miserably to do its job with regard to vetting Obama. Now the whole truth is finally coming out. Of course already the mainstream media mantra regarding this is: "There's nothing to see here. No big deal. Move along."

Derrick Bell maintained throughout his life that racial minorities in the U.S. were a PERMANENTLY oppressed caste. Bell endorsed a journal called "Race Traitor," which is dedicated to the "abolition of whiteness," and whose motto is "Treason to the white race is loyalty to humanity." Obama's mentor and campaign advisor from 2008 has admitted they intentionally hid this video from the media during the 2008 campaign. Stay tuned - this is only the beginning of what Breitbart's staff has uncovered.

Our "mainstream" media has failed miserably to do its job with regard to vetting Obama. Now the whole truth is finally coming out. Of course already the mainstream media mantra regarding this is: "There's nothing to see here. No big deal. Move along."

Derrick Bell maintained throughout his life that racial minorities in the U.S. were a PERMANENTLY oppressed caste. Bell endorsed a journal called "Race Traitor," which is dedicated to the "abolition of whiteness," and whose motto is "Treason to the white race is loyalty to humanity." Obama's mentor and campaign advisor from 2008 has admitted they intentionally hid this video from the media during the 2008 campaign. Stay tuned - this is only the beginning of what Breitbart's staff has uncovered.

Our "mainstream" media has failed miserably to do its job with regard to vetting Obama. Now the whole truth is finally coming out. Of course already the mainstream media mantra regarding this is: "There's nothing to see here. No big deal. Move along."

The failure of the mainstream media to examine Barack Obama's support for Critical Race Theory founder Derrick Bell is one of the most glaring cases of journalistic malpractice and neglect in recent memory.

Nearly every single Obama biographer and profiler has mentioned the contentious racial climate of Harvard Law School during the time that Obama was president of the Harvard Law Review.

Some have even mentioned the speech that Obama gave at a protest where he literally embraced Bell.

Yet none, seemingly, bothered to track down and report on the content of the speech itself--or on Bell's radical ideas.

A PBS election special in 2008 showed footage of the protest but dubbed over critical portions of Obama's speech in which he endorsed Bell. A selectively edited clip released by Buzzfeed yesterday included the relevant audio but cut out the footage of Obama embracing Bell.

Harvard Law school professor Charles Ogletree (pictured above)--who was also a debate coach for Obama during the 2008 campaign--told an audience at Harvard last year: "We hid this throughout the 2008 campaign. I don’t care if they find it now."

Many of Obama's biographers appear to have been aware of the Bell protest but showed little interest in Bell or what Obama said about him.

**So, BD, did the secret website happen to have the critically dubbed version?

As is often the case, we do not see eye to eye on this issue. And that is fine. I'll wait to see what the enormous "bombshell" is that Breitbart and Co. are planning for later in the week.

Sure, if a republican candidate were hugging a racist loon like Bell and telling an audience to open their hearts and minds to him, it'd be no big deal. If a republican had an unrepentant terrorist start his/her career and brushed it off as "just a guy from my neighborhood", the MSM and the left would give him/her a pass. If a republican attended a racist church for 20 years....

Do you have any explanation why the LA Times continues to hide the Rashid Khalidi tape? I'm sure it's no big deal, right? It's not like the LA Times has a political ax to grind and a candidate to protect.....

So, "Space Traders" perfectly captures the stupidity, paranoia, and shameless race-hustling of the people that Obama embraces. This is the idiocy that Obama believes we should open up [our] hearts and our minds to. Pass.

It’s disgusting. It’s revolting. And it’s rapidly becoming clear why the mainstream media refused to vet the President in 2008.

Breitbart.Com Editor-In-Chief Joel Pollak’s achieved a victory against CNN’s presidential apologists when he explained the relevance of this new video evidence linking Barack Obama to Critical Race Theory, the racist political theology of Derrick Bell:

POLLAK: No, I’m not afraid that black people are going to be violent and take over the country. What I’m pointing out is that there’s a pattern in Barack Obama’s associations with Derrick Bell, with Reverend Wright, and it carries over into his governance because his Justice Department won’t treat black civil rights violators the same way that it treats white civil rights violators. That there’s a racial pattern in which justice is enforced in this country. And it also gives us a sense into how Barack Obama thinks about these issues.

At every point in his life when he could have followed the path of Martin Luther King, he threw in his lot with the Jeremiah Wrights and the Derrick Bells of the world.

How often does truth like this penetrate the MSM fog? This is an example of how to hack the media Breitbart-style.

Jeff Dunetz at YidWithLid jumped in yesterday to remind us that Bell falls into a long pattern of antisemitic mentors and associates:

Yesterday’s release of the Barack Obama/Derrick Bell Harvard tape was seen by many as another example of the President’s long history associating with radicals. There is another interpretation however. When Obama urged people to open up their hearts and minds to Bell it was another case of him “cozying” up to an Anti-Semite. Understand we are not talking about people who are Anti-Israel (although there is a huge crossover of the two) but people who regularly use Anti-Semitic stereotypes or more direct derogatory comments about Jews.

No matter how many times I lay out the facts to them my progressive friends do not understand why any of this matters. “Where’s the bombshell?” in Soldedad O’Brien’s words. Try this information on the Democrats in your own life and you’ll get the same kind of embarrassing, non-sequiturs that prompted Pollak’s rebuttal above: What are you afraid of? That Obama will unleash wild Kenyan tribesman to run through the streets spearing white people? That for his second term he’s plotting new concentration camps for Louis Farrakhan to oversee the implementation of a second Holocaust?

No.

Consistently throughout his political career the young Barry Obama sympathized with antisemites and racists; as president his foreign policy (on Iran, Libya, and Israel) and his legal policy do the same.

The Frontline piece IMO covers the edges of those controversies but completely glosses over the implications IMO. The impression left is that the issues (at Harvard law School) were horribly divisive and that he was the healer, the one who could reach to both sides. What were the views he was championing? Not covered, was my take.

The top 10 or 12 objections I would have to a Barack Obama administration did not receive any mention, but the viewer of such an exhaustive piece might b e left thinking they have now done their homework for voting.

The next two chapters in American political history were already being written, the beginning of Obama's governance and the 2010 tea party / conservative total repudiation of that. The setup for both of those eventualities was the real story (IMHO) of the campaign of 2008 - not contemplated whatsoever in the documentary. What people were voting for in 2008 and what they got were judged quickly to be two different things (in full vetting?), but the essence of that was completely missed by a documentary of such enormous length and painstaking detail (because IMO the producers likely don't even know their own bias).

3 points of interest in the long version:

28:50+ on the long version is where the shorter clip is taken. Already mentioned, what were the (radical) views he was championing? You would likely need to follow far right wing media to know that. Young college grad Obama "needed to know if there was a better way to lift people out of poverty", so he pursued improving his resume and increasing the power of his influence instead of studying economics. He was accepted at one of the nation's most prestigious law schools (no question of how or why he was accepted), he took on student loans (implying that was how it was paid for, really?). What racial issues was the country going through in the late 1980's? Dred Scott? Rosa Parks? Jackie Robinson?? Was an Ivy League campus keeping out blacks?! What was Prof. Derrick Bell saying that was divisive? They say Obama championed his cause (the point conveyed I think was courage), they show him saying Bell was 'speaking the truth', but they did not say what that 'truth' was. Maybe that is in some other Frontline episode, lol.

Around the 57:00 mark of the first hour they get to the Trinity Church controversy, introduced this way:

"It was a big, popular inner-city church that was known for its community work."

They go on to cover the controversy of Reverend Wright. Seems to me that is exactly backwards to the point to the rest of America. Preaching things like "God Damn America' and "America's chickens have come home to roost" is what was drawing the extremely large and enthusiastic crowds in the heart of the 'capital of black America'; they also do community work. I can think of other figures in recent history who preached hatred yet did community work, but will decline to name the analogies.

At one hour and 50 minutes: Obama is described for choosing of Joe Biden as his VP choice: 'Obama is someone who is cautious, someone who in a very old fashioned sense is a conservative guy," - Ryan Lizza NY Times, and used as PBS Frontline's Oct 15 2008 ending on Obama (before they headed back to close on McCain's choice of Sarah Palin).

Yeah, a conservative guy, that's who suburban white soccer moms, 78% of Jewish Americans and the majority of deficit-first independent voters were electing. (Emoticon unavailable) If that piece passes as full vetting I have some nice property for sale... Respectfully, Doug.

A pretty insightful Peggy Noonan piece today in the WSJ. She ties it to the election for relevance but the insightful parts IMO are about what is going on and not going on in this Presidency.------------------------Republicans feel an understandable anxiety about Mr. Obama's coming campaign: It will be all slice and dice, divide and conquer, break the country into little pieces and pick up as many as you can. He'll try to pick up college students one day and solidify environmentalist support the next, he'll valorize this group and demonize the other. He means to gather in and hold onto all the pieces he needs, and turn them into a jagged, jangly coalition that will win it for him in November and not begin making individual demands until December.

But it still matters that the president doesn't have a coherent agenda, or a political philosophy that is really clear to people. To the extent he has a philosophy it, tends to pop up furtively in stray comments and then go away. This is to a unique degree a presidency of inference, its overall meaning never vividly declared. In some eras, that may be a plus. In this one?

Republicans are worried about the power of incumbency, and it is a real power. Presidents command the airwaves, as they used to say. If they want to make something the focus of national discussion, they usually can, at least for a while. And this president is always out there, talking. But—and forgive me, because what I'm about to say is rude—has anyone noticed how boring he is? Plonking platitude after plonking platitude. To see Mr. Obama on the stump is to see a man at the podium who's constantly dribbling away the punch line. He looks pleasant but lacks joy; he's cool but lacks vigor. A lot of what he says could have been said by a president 12 or 20 years ago, little is anchored to the moment. As he makes his points he often seems distracted, as if he's holding a private conversation in his head, noticing crowd size, for instance, and wishing the front row would start fainting again, like they used to.

I listen to him closely and find myself daydreaming: This is the best-tailored president since JFK. His suits, shirts and ties are beautifully cut from fine material. This is an elegant man. But I shouldn't be thinking about that, I should be thinking about what a powerful case he's making for his leadership. I'm not because he's not.

It is still so surprising that a person who seems bored by politicking has risen to the highest political office in the land. Politics is a fleshly profession, it's all hugging, kissing, arm twisting, shaking hands. It involves contact. When you see politicians on C-Span, in the well of the House or the Senate after a vote, they're always touching each other's arms and shoulders. They touch each other more than actors! Bill Clinton was fleshly, and LBJ. How odd to have a Democratic president who doesn't seem to like humans all that much.

He's raised a lot of money, or so we keep reading. He has a sophisticated, wired, brilliant computer operation—they know how to mine Internet data and get the addresses of people who've never been reached by a campaign before, and how to approach them in a friendly and personal way. This is thought to be a secret weapon. I'm not so sure. All they can approach their new friends with is arguments that have already been made, the same attacks and assertions. If you have fabulous new ways to reach everyone in the world but you have little to say, does that really help you?

A while back I talked to a young man who was developing a wonderful thing for a website, a kind of constant live TV show with anyone anywhere able to join in and share opinions live, on the screen. You're on your iPad in the train station, you log on and start talking. He was so excited at the technology, which seemed impressive. But I thought: Why do you think people will say anything interesting or important?

This is the problem of the world now: Big mic, no message. If you have nothing to say, does it matter that you have endless venues in which to say it?

The old Washington gossip was that the Obama campaign was too confident, now it is that they are nervous. The second seems true if you go by their inability, months after it was clear Mitt Romney would be running against them, to find and fix on a clear line of attack. Months ago he was the out-of-touch corporate raider. Then he was a flip-flopping weasel. They momentarily shifted to right-wing extremist. This week he seems to be a Bushite billionaire.

Will all this work? When you look at Romney you see a wealthy businessman, a Mormon of inherently moderate instinct, a person who is conservative in his personal sphere but who lives and hopes to rise in a world he well knows is not quite so tidy. He doesn't seem extreme.

It's interesting that the Obama campaign isn't using what incumbent presidents always sooner or later use, either straight out or subliminally. And that is "You know me. I've been president for almost four years, you don't know that other guy. In a high-stakes world do you really want someone new?"

You know why they're not using "You know me"? Because we know him, and it's not a plus.

Here's one reason why.

There is a growing air of incompetence around Mr. Obama's White House. It was seen again this week in Supreme Court arguments over the administration's challenge to Arizona's attempted crackdown on illegal immigration. As Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News wrote, the court seemed to be disagreeing with the administration's understanding of federal power: "Solicitor General Donald Verrilli . . . met resistance across ideological lines. . . . Even Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the court's only Hispanic and an Obama appointee, told Verrilli his argument is 'not selling very well.' " This follows last month's embarrassing showing over the constitutionality of parts of ObamaCare.

All of this looks so bush league, so scattered. Add it to the General Services Administration, to Solyndra, to the other scandals, and you get a growing sense that no one's in charge, that the administration is paying attention to politics but not day-to-day governance. The two most public cabinet members are Eric Holder at Justice and Janet Napolitano at Homeland Security. He is overseeing the administration's Supreme Court cases. She is in charge of being unmoved by the daily stories of Transportation Security Administration incompetence and even cruelty at our airports. Those incidents and stories continue, but if you go to the Homeland Security website, there is no mention of them. It's as if they don't even exist.***

Maybe the 2012 election is simpler than we think.

It will be about Mr. Obama.

Did you like the past four years? Good, you can get four more.

Do the president and his people strike you as competent? If so, you can renew his contract, and he will renew theirs.

If you don't want to rehire him, you will look at the other guy. Does he strike you as credible, a possible president? Then you can hire him.

I take from it two things, he is more real and genuine for having some past revealed and some relationships. Second is that my belief that he did not write his own books was reinforced.

"In Dreams from My Father, Obama chose to emphasize a racial chasm that unavoidably separated him from the woman he described as his New York girlfriend.

One night I took her to see a new play by a black playwright. It was a very angry play, but very funny. Typical black American humor. The audience was mostly black, and everybody was laughing and clapping and hollering like they were in church. After the play was over, my friend started talking about why black people were so angry all the time. I said it was a matter of remembering—nobody asks why Jews remember the Holocaust, I think I said—and she said that’s different, and I said it wasn’t, and she said that anger was just a dead end. We had a big fight, right in front of the theater. When we got back to the car she started crying. She couldn’t be black, she said. She would if she could, but she couldn’t. She could only be herself, and wasn’t that enough.None of this happened with Genevieve. She remembered going to the theater only once with Barack, and it was not to see a work by a black playwright.

“It is an incident that happened,” Maraniss quotes Obama as saying in a decades-later interview, but it wasn’t with her.

“That was not her,” he said. “That was an example of compression I was very sensitive in my book not to write about my girlfriends, partly out of respect for them. So that was a consideration. I thought that [the anecdote involving the reaction of a white girlfriend to the angry black play] was a useful theme to make about sort of the interactions that I had in the relationships with white girlfriends. And so, that occupies, what, two paragraphs in the book? My attitude was it would be dishonest for me not to touch on that at all … so that was an example of sort of editorially how do I figure that out?” "-----------What?

They found the girl he went to the play with and one other girlfriend andjournals and letters. The incident did not happen. It was, in my conjecture only, a stereotypical race relations discussion between sort of black man and white woman, fictionalized by someone else. The composite story is interesting but there have been other indicators that his notes were the take off point for whomever wrote the rest.

Kenyan-born Obama all set for US Senate --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kenyan-born US Senate hopeful, Barrack Obama (THIS PHRASE IS WHY THIS PIECE IS BEING POSTED-- I would add that this is an example of the sort of fascinating inconvenient datum that can be vaporized by Big Brother and which we need to keep our own independent evidence of it) appeared set to take over the Illinois Senate seat after his main rival, Jack Ryan, dropped out of the race on Friday night amid a furor over lurid sex club allegations.

The allegations that horrified fellow Republicans and caused his once-promising candidacy to implode in four short days have given Obama a clear lead as Republicans struggled to fetch an alternative.

Ryan’s campaign began to crumble on Monday following the release of embarrassing records from his divorce. In the records, his ex-wife, Boston Public actress Jeri Ryan, said her former husband took her to kinky sex clubs in Paris, New York and New Orleans.

"It’s clear to me that a vigorous debate on the issues most likely could not take place if I remain in the race," Ryan, 44, said in a statement. "What would take place, rather, is a brutal, scorched-earth campaign – the kind of campaign that has turned off so many voters, the kind of politics I refuse to play."

Although Ryan disputed the allegations, saying he and his wife went to one ‘avant-garde’ club in Paris and left because they felt uncomfortable, lashed out at the media and said it was "truly outrageous" that the Chicago Tribune got a judge (note the Chicago machine tactics here to BO's benefit) to unseal the records.

The Republican choice will become an instant underdog in the campaign for the seat of retiring Republican Senator Peter Fitzgerald, since Obama held a wide lead even before the scandal broke.

"I feel for him actually," Obama told a Chicago TV station. "What he’s gone through over the last three days I think is something you wouldn’t wish on anybody."

The Republican state committee must now choose a replacement for Ryan, who had won in the primaries against seven contenders. Its task is complicated by the fact that Obama holds a comfortable lead in the polls and is widely regarded as a rising Democratic star. (Eventually Alan Keyes was chosen to carpet bag into the district)

The chairwoman of the Illinois Republican Party, Judy Topinka, said at a news conference, after Ryan withdrew, that Republicans would probably take several weeks to settle on a new candidate.

"Obviously, this is a bad week for our party and our state," she said.

As recently as Thursday, spokesmen for the Ryan campaign still insisted that Ryan would remain in the race. Ryan had defended himself saying, "There’s no breaking of any laws. There’s no breaking of any marriage laws. There’s no breaking of the Ten Commandments anywhere." ============

Many people evolve on issues, McCain on tax cuts, Reagan and Romney on life, etc. Politicians sometimes pay a price for that, but it beats total close mindedness or being stone deaf to what the people you wish to represent are wanting.

The oddest part of Pres. Obama giving his sudden historic support for gay marriage, being ahead of the curve, is that he held that position also in 1996-2004, renounced it for seeking high office, invoked God as a reason for his new, temporary view, now is back in favor of gender free marriage for any spouse one and spouse two. It is Biden who voted for the Defense of Marriage Act who has 'evolved'. The President has only weaseled. For him, this was always about focus groups, fund raising and the desire to gain and hold political power.-----------http://www.mediaite.com/online/final-answer-president-obama-did-fill-out-1996-questionnaire-supporting-gay-marriage/

White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer resurrected a longstanding controversy Friday when he said that President Obama had not personally filled out a 1996 questionnaire that indicated support for gay marriage. At today’s White House briefing, The Washington Blade‘s Chris Johnson was finally able to get confirmation that the President did, indeed, fill out the questionnaire. Despite Jay Carney‘s protests to the contrary, the White House has not been at all forthcoming in answering that question.

During a Q&A this past Friday at the Netroots Nation conference, Pfeiffer was asked about the questionnaire, and in his response, made the same mistake that Robert Gibbs did when Johnson asked about it in January, confusing it with two other 1996 questionnaires about gun control. The gun control questionnaires were filled out by Obama’s then-campaign manager Carol Harwell.

“If you actually go back and look,” Pfeiffer said, “that questionnaire was actually filled out by someone else, not the President.”

Following Pfeiffer’s remarks, the White House issued a statement explaining the confusion, but still did not confirm that Mr. Obama had filled out the document in question:

“Dan was not familiar with the history of the questionnaire that was brought up today, but the president’s views are clear,” (White House spokesman Shin) Inouye said. “He has long supported equal rights and benefits for gay and lesbian couples and since taking office he has signed into law the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell,’ signed into law the hate crimes bill, made the decision not to defend Section 3 of DOMA and expanded federal benefits for same sex partners of federal employees.”

This statement is all too familiar to me. Following Gibbs’ January response, I explained to Gibbs that he had been thinking of the gun control surveys, and that the gay marriage questionnaire had never really been addressed, save an oblique reference by then-Senator Obama in a 2004 interview, which seemed to indicate he had filled it out.

He referred me to a deputy press secretary for followup, and after two weeks of emails, I finally received this statement, from Shin Inouye:

The President has made his position on this issue clear – as a candidate in 2008, in his public writings, and in his on the record comments on at least three separate occasions. He’s also made it clear that he supports full civil unions and federal rights for LGBT couples, supports a repeal of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, and opposes a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and opposes divisive measures like Proposition 8 in California. His Administration has also taken numerous steps to help secure equal rights for LGBT Americans, such as extending benefits to the same-sex domestic partners of federal employees and ensuring equal access to HUD programs, and we hope to continue making progress.

For a guy whose views are clear, President Obama’s press office sure went to a lot of trouble to avoid answering that question. Yes, confirming this would make it appear he had flipped on the issue, but he handled that very well in that 2004 interview:

The Windy City Times, which later acquired Outlines, said it interviewed Obama in 2004, when he was a state legislator running for the U.S. Senate. In a January 2009 article recapping the interview, the newspaper quoted him as saying he no longer supported same-sex marriage “primarily just as a strategic issue,” and not because he had changed his philosophy.

“I think that marriage, in the minds of a lot of voters, has a religious connotation,” Obama said, according to the article. “I know that’s true in the African American community, for example.” Instead, he endorsed civil unions, a designation that did not exist in 1996.

That strategy later evolved to include saying he personally didn’t believe in gay marriage, but opposed efforts to ban it. At that time, there was some resonance to the argument that in order to help gay people, Obama needed to get elected, even if that meant taking a lukewarm porridge position on gay marriage.

At Monday’s White House briefing, Johnson asked Carney about it again, and among the “we love the gays” boilerplate we have come to know and love, Carney confirmed that it was his understanding that the President had completed the questionnaire himself, and Carney acted as though this had always been common knowledge: (transcript via The Washington Blade, additional transcription by Tommy Christopher)

Washington Blade: Jay, I just want to follow up on remarks that Dan Pfeiffer made last week on the president’s 1996 questionnaire response on marriage. The statement from the president in 1996 reads, “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibits such marriages.” Pfeiffer said someone else filled out this questionnaire for the president. Can you confirm that it’s the White House’s position that someone else filled out this questionnaire and —

Carney: Chris, I think you know because you’ve read it multiple times since then that we’ve corrected it beginning Friday that he — that that is not the case, that he was mistaking with another questionnaire.

The president’s position on gay marriage has been clear since ’08 — is clear, again, since he’s been president.

Q: Jay, will you clarify whether the ’96 survey was signed by Obama?

Carney: It’s my understanding that it was.

Blade: But did the president, in fact, support same-sex marriage in 1996?

Carney: Again, what I know is what his position was during the campaign and what it is now. He’s been very clear about it. He was very clear in the campaign. He was very clear about the fact that his position on the views — that’s it evolving. And I really don’t have anything to add to it.

Blade: On Thursday, the president is attending an LGBT fundraiser in New York. This state could have same-sex marriage by the end of this week. It’s very possible. Next week, he’s hosting a Pride reception here at the White House. Isn’t the president selling this audience short by saying he supports them and wants their money for his re-election campaign, but also saying at the same time he does not support their right to marry?

Carney: Chris, I think you know that this president is very supportive of and strong on LGBT rights. And his record is significant with regard to that. He’s been very clear about his position on gay marriage, he’s been very clear about how that position is evolving. I don’t have any new announcements to make, but I think you know his record, and he’s proud of it.

Johnson also asked Carney if the President might share his “evolution” on marriage equality at an upcoming LGBT event, to which Carney replied, “I don’t anticipate that.”

Here’s the problem: the President’s views are clear; as I told Carney a few weeks ago, any reasonable person would conclude, from his words and actions, that President Obama believes in the right of same sex couples to marry, yet he still has not said so, publicly. It’s not 2008 anymore, and while the entire 2012 GOP field (save Ron Paul and Herman Cain) hasn’t progressed, the rest of the country has. For the first time, a majority of Americans support marriage equality, and civil unions have become the 8-track tape of gay rights.

The Democrats no longer have a filibuster-proof majority, and no chance to repeal DOMA, so this is no longer a strategic fight. It is a fight for the hearts and minds of those who still don’t grasp the inequity of second class citizenship, many of whom, as Don Lemon pointed out, are part of a key Obama constituency.

It’s a fight for the hearts and minds of those Democrats who are still stuck in Clinton triangulation mode.

It’s also a fight for the hearts and minds of the tens of millions of LGBT people, and those who love them, who are encouraged by the strides that the President’s press team rattles off, but who are confused by his refusal to stand by them and say, “I believe you are equal.”

It’s a fight for the hearts and minds of all the kids who really need to hear him say that, the kids we keep telling, “It gets better.”

Nobody believes that the President is sitting around, thinking and thinking about this issue, unable to push that boulder over the hill. As Carney’s answers demonstrate, it could not be more obvious that President Obama believes in marriage equality. With so many people who need to hear it, why won’t he say it? (That was in 2011)-----------“What I believe is that marriage is between a man and a woman … What I believe, in my faith, is that a man and a woman, when they get married, are performing something before God, and it’s not simply the two persons who are meeting,” he said when running for the U.S. Senate in 2004.http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-returns-to-1996-position-says-he-supports-gay-marriage?v=1----------Obama on Gay Marriage• 1996, running for Illinois state Senate: "I favor legalizing same-sex marriage."• 2004, running for U.S. Senate: "Marriage is between a man and a woman.• 2010, as president: "My feelings are constantly evolving" on gay mar riage.• 2012, as president: "I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304070304577394332545729926.html

Unbelievable how the media can vaporize previous stuff that was out there.

From Bob Grant. A little outdated posted by him back in March before Romney was the solo Republican. I only post because Bob was on his show yesterday opining that Romney is going to lose by criticizing the PAC that is bringing up the Rev Wright issue again.

The DC repubs seem to feel that this was already "veted" and serves no purpose in this campaign. Bob disagrees.

He points out the Dems have no conscious about deceit or any kind of attack on Repubs and therefore all kid gloves should come off in this campaing.

The establishment Repubs have concluded that sticking to the economy IS the best strategy for Romney and personal atacks against the ONE will not work.

I can only hope they do this because they have studies with data that tells them this is the best strategy.

The Potemkin President DisintegratesPosted By Bruce Thornton On May 21, 2012After nearly four years in office, the tinsel and cardboard persona of Barack Obama is starting to fall apart. The political unifier who claimed, “There is not a liberal America and a conservative America––there is the United States of America,” has been exposed as one of the most divisive and partisan presidents of modern times. The post-racial candidate who supposedly transcended our racial divisions has intensified them, whether by crudely racializing incidents like the Trayvon Martin shooting, or by allowing the Justice Department to facilitate race-industry attacks on state voter-identification laws, or by calling his own grandmother “a typical white person” for fearing black criminals. The decrier of how money has corrupted our politics has spent more time at the campaign contribution trough than he has governing. The “centrist” who set aside partisan politics for the greater national good has been exposed as a doctrinaire progressive adept at bare-knuckled class warfare. And the “smartest guy ever to become President,” as one historically challenged historian put it, has turned out to be remarkably ignorant about a multitude of issues from the economy to foreign policy.Yet we didn’t need the past three years to learn the truth about Obama. The evidence was all there from the start. What allowed the fantasy Obama to gain the White House was the collusion of a corrupt mainstream media that failed to ask the hard questions or follow through on stories that had managed to get the nation’s attention. The recentrevelation from the Breitbart outfit that a publisher’s promotional booklet in 1991 bragged that Obama had been “born in Kenya” is just the latest evidence of how stubbornly and willfully indifferent the media have been to asking the penetrating questions of the sort that have dogged every president, especially those since Lyndon Johnson. The media’s dereliction of duty has allowed Obama to construct ad hoc identities that suit his political agenda and obscure his unsavory past and ideology.For example, the continuing questions about Obama’s birth-country renewed by the Breitbart discovery are significant for exposing his long history of fabricating an identity to suit his careerist needs. The Hawaii prep-schooled, white-raised Barry Dunham discovered on getting to college that the exotic name Barack Hussein Obama, like the Indonesian childhood, was more useful for sending a diversity thrill down the leg of liberal white professors and admissions committees. So too with publishers, eager to display their multi-culti bona fides by promoting a Third-World author “born in Kenya,” who would chronicle his struggles against neo-colonial racism. Like many other hustlers “of color,” Obama was no doubt happy to oblige and collude in the deception––until national political ambitions required that he tone down the “other” vibe, at least until after the election.So too with the unasked questions about Obama’s radical past. The media saw nothing to report about Obama starting his political career in the living room of ex-terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn. You remember Ayers, the ex-Weatherman who bragged in his memoirs about getting away with his terrorist violence and being “free as a bird.” Obama assured us that Ayers was “just a guy who lives in my neighborhood,” despite serving on two foundation boards and appearing at conferences with him. As is the media’s wont, perfunctory “investigations” revealed that there was nothing to the stories, taking on faith Obama’s incredible assertion that there was no significance to the fact that one of America’s most notorious terrorists was a part of his life and political development. The same media that ran with a hit-piece on George Bush supported only by an obviously fabricated letter, and that currently is intensely picking over the past history of Bain Capital, Romney’s treatment of the family dog, and his alleged high-school bullying––that same media four years ago didn’t think there was anything newsworthy in the Democratic candidate for president having ties with an unrepentant left-wing terrorist. Instead, they helped construct Obama’s new identity as a pragmatic centrist beyond partisan politics.Then there’s the Reverend Jeremiah “God-damn America” Wright, whom Obama credits with leading him to Christianity, who officiated at his wedding, who gave him the title of his second book, and whose church he attended for 20 years. When the videos of Wright’s sermons surfaced, Obama claimed that he was “shocked, shocked” by the rancid anti-Americanism and racism weekly preached by Wright, and the media accepted that preposterous rationalization. Even John McCain dutifully refused to demand an explanation, declaring Wright “off limits.” Indeed, any mention of Wright even today calls forth shrill charges of “race-baiting” and “racial politics” from the Democrats and MSNBC. The same media that in 2006 hyperventilated over Republican Senate candidate George Allen saying something that sort of sounded like what maybe was an obscure ethnic slur apparently didn’t see a story in the fact that Obama’s spiritual mentor hates white people and had glorified the terrorist attacks of 9/11 as “chickens coming home to roost.” Obama needed to be a mainstream post-racialist Christian for the election, so the media were happy to help him throw his one-time spiritual mentor under the bus.Once again, none of those intrepid “watchdog” reporters from the legacy media were interested in digging for the true Obama, and in stripping away the carefully constructed façade to find out what, if anything, Obama sincerely believed in. All they needed to know was that he was going to “fundamentally transform America” into the progressive paradise. Like Lincoln Steffens on the train heading for the Soviet Union, the facts could be damned: the media had already seen the future, and it worked.And this is just the beginning of the Obama mysteries left unexamined by the media. Why has the guy whose “I.Q. is off the charts,” as that same historian claimed, refused to release his college transcripts? Is there something in his course-work and grades that could explain the numerous historical gaffes, such as his assertion in the 2009 Cairo speech that Muslims were practicing tolerance in Cordoba centuries after they had been driven out by the Spaniards, or his repetition of internet apocryphal history, as when he claimed President Rutherford B. Hayes had dismissed the telephone’s future, when in fact he installed the first telephone in the White House? Is there some transcript evidence that illuminates the source of howlers such as “57” states or the “Austrian” language? Why have a media that reveled in documenting daily George Bush’s alleged stupidity maintained a studied indifference to this genius’s academic record?Or why, in this age of meticulous intrusion into every last detail of a politician’s life and health, has Obama’s complete medical records been kept secret? What doesn’t he want us to see? Why can’t we read the Columbia thesis of this universally acknowledged “brilliant” writer? Why did he receive “foreign student aid”? Why, as Roger Kimballasks, are his Illinois state senate schedule and records, Selective Service registration, and law practice client list all sealed? Perhaps there are innocuous reasons for all this secrecy, but no other candidate for the most powerful political job in the world would ever be allowed to keep this information from the public.Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

"So too with the unasked questions about Obama’s radical past. The media saw nothing to report about Obama starting his political career in the living room of ex-terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn."..."Then there’s the Reverend Jeremiah “God-damn America” Wright, whom Obama credits with leading him to Christianity, who officiated at his wedding, who gave him the title of his second book, and whose church he attended for 20 years."

You wouldn't think their glass house strategy would be to go hard after Romney's background, lol.

Investors Business Daily goes further with the Obama phenomenon today tying questions in his background to questions in his character:--------------IBD Editorials

Obama's Bio Grows Even Sketchier

Posted 05/21/2012 07:00 PM ET

The Obama Record

The Obama Record: The discovery of the president's false book bio claiming Kenyan birth fits an increasingly disturbing pattern. We've long described Obama as radical, but he's also deceitful.

The mix of these two traits in the Oval Office is toxic. But the Washington media are anything but alarmed, still believing as they do the mythical savior figure they created in 2008.

The other night, MSNBC's Chris Matthews argued on his "Hardball" show that Americans would be wise to re-elect Obama because he's "the candidate we know." He claimed he's a trusted brand who "is who he seems to be."

He went on to describe the president as "a fairly pragmatic progressive" and "tough defender of the country." Therefore, he argued, he's the safer choice vs. GOP foe Mitt Romney, whom Matthews warns is an unknown commodity — "Brand X" — who could turn out to be a nutty puppet of the "radical right."

Of course, Obama isn't at all who he seems to be. And judging from Obama's sinking poll numbers, this is becoming more apparent to the electorate — thanks in part to the new media's revetting of Obama after the old media's half-hearted attempt in 2008.

Voters who don't watch MSNBC are starting to see that the president's public persona is merely a hologram created by media shills like Matthews, who define his identity and ideology and redefine it when facts disrupt the carefully constructed narrative.

The latest fly in the ointment for Team Obama is a promotional bio Obama's book agent put out in 1991. The old copy, dug up last week by Breitbart.com, says he was "born in Kenya." Asked about the mistaken birthplace, the agent claimed it "was nothing more than a fact-checking error."mp3Subscribe to the IBD Editorials Podcast

But that's not just any error. Getting a job title wrong is one thing. But screwing up a client's place of birth is a major — and bizarre — boo-boo.

More than likely, Obama supplied the error as fact, since the agency requires clients to submit their bio information. Adding to suspicions, Obama failed to correct it. For 16 years. He allowed his agent to continue to publish the error — despite several updates to his bio posted online — until 2007, when Obama ran for the White House and abruptly switched agents. Only then was the bio corrected.

Why would Obama fictionalize his life story? For answers, let's go back to 1991. At the time he got his book deal, Obama was graduating from Harvard Law School, which required strong grades for entry. Yet by all accounts, Obama had weak grades. Did he juice his application — a la his Harvard law pal, Elizabeth "Cherokee Liz" Warren — to hedge his bet in case his minority status wasn't exotic enough to overcome his grades?

Northwestern University professor John McKnight said a desperate Obama approached him for a letter of recommendation to Harvard, because he couldn't get any of his undergrad professors to pen one due to underwhelming academics. McKnight was one of Obama's radical Alinsky trainers and a key mentor, but not one of his professors.

The embellished bio makes the circumstances surrounding Obama's Harvard admission curiouser. And all the more reason to demand this president do what every other modern president has done, including Democrat candidates John Kerry and Al Gore, and turn over his academic records for public review.

At bottom, this is an issue of trust.

The notion that his author's bio, which played up high the phony foreign-born status, was simply a typo is about as credible as Obama claiming he never heard his radically anti-American preacher say anything unpatriotic while sitting in his pews for over two decades. Or that he hardly knew his Hyde Park neighbor Bill Ayers, the unrepentant terrorist who launched his political career from his living room. And who sat with him on the board of a few radical organizations. And who claims to have actually written the very memoir Obama and his agent began promoting in 1991.

Just who is this man sitting in the people's house? Increasingly, he appears devious and dishonest.

The piece drifts from journalism about groups on campus to his own views. Written about anti-militarism, freeze and disarmament at a time when the opposite, peace through strength, was about to bring down the Soviet empire. Or as Barack put it, "By being intransigent, Reagan is playing directly into the Russians' hands."

Young Barack was no more succinct then, and his views on negotiating with the Russians have not changed either. This is only his closing; read it all at the link.

"Indeed, the most pervasive maladyof the collegiate system specifically, andthe American experience generally, isthat elaborate patterns of knowledgeand theory have been disembodied fromindividual choices and government policy.What the members of ARA and (Student groups: Arms Race Alternatives and Students Against Militarism)SAM try to do is infuse what they havelearned about the current situation,bring the words of that formidable rosteron the face of Butler Library, nameslike Thoreau, Jefferson, and Whitman,to bear on the twisted logic of which weare today a part. By adding their energyand effort in order to enchance the possibilityof a decent world, they may helpdeprive us of a spectacular experience-that of war. But then, there aresome things we shouldn't have to livethrough in order to want to avoid theexperience, and soon, it is quite probable that theGermans will do something on theirown. The Reagan administration's stallingat the Geneva ta1Iks on nuclear weaponshas thus already caused severetension and could ultimately bring abouta dangerous rift between the UnitedStates and Western Europe. By beingintransigent, Reagan is playing directlyinto the Russians' hands.

In 1933 the German establishmentthought it could use Hitler to restore amodicum of order to the confused andconfusing Weimar Republic. In fact,Hitler did strengthen the German establishment,but not exactly in the waythe bankers and businessmen hadwanted; and now, fifty years later, it isclear who was using whom.

Nevertheless, the Western Worlddid not complain in 1933 because Hitler,though a fascist and a totalitarian, wasseen, like counUess American puppetdictators today, as someone who leavesthe established order in place.

Not so the Greens. If a group ofyoung, anti-establishment pacifistsv,ith unusual ideas and uncomfortableanswers to hard questions terrifies usmore today than Hitler, Himmler,Goering and Goebbels did back in 1933,our terror says more about us than itdoes about the Greens or the Germans.It indicates that we have failed to comprehendthe meaning of Nazism andhlind obedience to authority in their fullhorror, and that we, unlike the Greens,have yet ourselves to learn the dem<>craticlesson that we have taught theGennans so well.

Since the European peace movementhas long since become the Americanpeace movement, and since Americanow has its own Green Party, the riseof the Greens in Germany has profoundsignificance here. It is at once a warningto us that the old solutions of more weaponsand again more weapons will nolonger be accepted in a Europe that isalready a powderkeg waiting to go off;and it is an invitation to work towards apeace that is genuine, lasting and nonnuclear.

..In Maraniss excerpts, Obama’s ex-girlfriend recalls his ‘sexual warmth’ and charm but also his detachment.Here is the future most powerful man in the world, judged through the eyes of a long-ago ex-girlfriend as she records in her personal journal the demise of their brief but intense relationship:

Thursday, May 23, 1985

Barack leaving my life—at least as far as being lovers goes. In the same way that the relationship was founded on calculated boundaries and carefully, rationally considered developments, it seems to be ending along coolly considered lines. I read back over the past year in my journals, and see and feel several themes in it all ... how from the beginning what I have been most concerned with has been my sense of Barack's withholding the kind of emotional involvement I was seeking. I guess I hoped time would change things and he'd let go and "fall in love" with me. Now, at this point, I'm left wondering if Barack's reserve, etc. is not just the time in his life, but, after all, emotional scarring that will make it difficult for him to get involved even after he's sorted his life through with age and experience. Hard to say, as obviously I was not the person that brought infatuation. (That lithe, bubbly, strong black lady is waiting somewhere!)

Barack was, of course, future President Barack Obama. The woman was Genevieve Cook, who met Obama in 1983 at a Christmas party in Manhattan's East Village. He was barely six months from his graduation from Columbia University. They crossed paths in the kitchen. He was wearing blue jeans, a T-shirt and a dark leather jacket.

The poignant, often intimate recollections come from "Barack Obama: The Story" by David Maraniss. Vanity Fair published excerpts of the book, which will be published in June. They confirm Obama's description of himself in his memoir "Dreams From My Father" as grappling with his identity. And they will resonate with those who regard Obama as charming but powerfully reserved, almost aloof—traits that have led more than one observer to liken him to "Star Trek's" Mr. Spock.

Thursday, January 26 How is he so old already, at the age of 22? I have to recognize (despite play of wry and mocking smile on lips) that I find his thereness very threatening. ... Distance, distance, distance, and wariness.

And

Saturday, February 25 The sexual warmth is definitely there—but the rest of it has sharp edges and I'm finding it all unsettling and finding myself wanting to withdraw from it all. I have to admit that I am feeling anger at him for some reason, multi-stranded reasons. His warmth can be deceptive. Tho he speaks sweet words and can be open and trusting, there is also that coolness—and I begin to have an inkling of some things about him that could get to me.

At another point, in March, she described Obama as "drawing others' cards out of their hands for careful inspection" without reciprocating. "There's something also there of smoothed veneer, of guardedness ... but I'm still left with this feeling of ... a bit of a wall—the veil," Cook wrote.

Maraniss writes that "when she told him that she loved him, his response was not 'I love you, too' but 'thank you'—as though he appreciated that someone loved him."

A May 9 entry described Obama as "so wary, wary. Has visions of his life, but in a hiatus as to their implementation—wants to fly, and hasn't yet started to take off, so resents extra weight."

Readers who want to will see Cook as predicting Obama's eventual marriage to first lady Michelle Obama.

"I can't help thinking that what he would really want, be powerfully drawn to, was a woman, very strong, very upright, a fighter, a laugher, well-­experienced—a black woman I keep seeing her as," she wrote.

Briefly, the claim depends on attributing all of FY 2009 spending to the Bush administration. FY 2009 represented the biggest increase in federal spending in history, by a very wide margin, and Bush had little or nothing to do with it. That was the year of the stimulus, and the Democratic Congress assiduously avoided passing a budget until Obama had been sworn in, in January 2009. Obama and the Democrats own FY 2009 spending lock, stock and barrel. The remarkable thing is that even though “stimulus” spending is over, the Democrats haven’t cut overall spending at all, but rather have increased it even further from the astronomical FY 2009 level. The attempt to paint Obama as a fiscal conservative was so transparently stupid that even the Washington Post and the Associated Press denounced it.

But that hasn’t stopped Obama himself from going back to the well. Today he said, at a New York fundraiser with Bill Clinton:

Even when it comes to their big issue, the deficit and the debt, as President Clinton just mentioned, you know, the truth is that the two presidents over the last 30 years, 40 years, who had the lowest increases in government spending, you are looking at them right here. They’re on this stage.

Forget for the moment how utterly dishonest this is, and how sad that Obama continues repeating the lie even when his own most loyal supporters in the media have deserted him. What I want to focus on here is how pathetic it is that Obama is now reduced to posing as a fiscal conservative. Did Obama run in 2008 on a platform of restraining federal spending? Of course not. He represents the left wing of the Democratic Party, whose main objective is increased federal spending. To the extent that he has influenced legislation, has it ever had the purpose of limiting federal spending? Don’t be ridiculous! His signature legislative “achievements,” the stimulus and Obamacare, entailed billions of dollars in new federal appropriations. Has he ever even proposed to limit spending in any meaningful way? No. On the contrary, his budgets have been so flamboyantly profligate that in the last two years, not a single Senator or Congressman has been willing to vote for them. Obama has never been, or tried to be, anything but a far-left spendthrift. So the fact that he now is reduced to posing as a green-eyeshade cost-cutter is simply pathetic.

The same thing has happened in foreign policy. Obama ran as a classic foreign policy leftist, skeptical of his own country’s history and interests. He denounced “torture,” a reference to the three hard-core terrorists who had been waterboarded years earlier, and vowed to close Guantanamo Bay. He thought he could influence the Muslim world by virtue of his middle name and his Indonesian boyhood. All of that is now ancient history. Obama’s proudest boast, as he runs for re-election, is that he didn’t prohibit the raid that killed Osama bin Laden. Recently, the White House has leaked the claim that Obama himself chooses the terrorists to be killed by Predator missiles. In the 1960s, when the press reported that Lyndon Johnson was personally selecting bombing targets in Vietnam, it was one more nail in Johnson’s political coffin. Today, Barack Obama, having completely failed to achieve anything he intended when he took office, is so desperate that he has nothing better to offer: he presents himself as not just a skinflint, but a bloodthirsty one. It is, as I say, a pathetic legacy.

President Obama’s problem now isn’t what Wisconsin did, it’s how he looks each day—careening around, always in flight, a superfluous figure. No one even looks to him for leadership now. He doesn’t go to Wisconsin, where the fight is. He goes to Sarah Jessica Parker’s place, where the money is.

There is, now, a house-of-cards feel about this administration. …

Any president will, in a presidential election year, be political. But there is a startling sense with Mr. Obama that that’s all he is now, that he and his people are all politics, all the time, undeviatingly, on every issue. He isn’t even trying to lead, he’s just trying to win.

Most ominously, there are the national-security leaks that are becoming a national scandal—the “avalanche of leaks,” according to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, that are somehow and for some reason coming out of the administration. A terrorist “kill list,” reports of U.S. spies infiltrating Al Qaeda in Yemen, stories about Osama bin Laden’s DNA and how America got it, and U.S. involvement in the Stuxnet computer virus, used against Iranian nuclear facilities. These leaks, say the California Democrat, put “American lives in jeopardy,” put “our nation’s security in jeopardy.”

This isn’t the usual—this is something different. A special counsel may be appointed.

And where is the president in all this? On his way to Anna Wintour’s house. He’s busy. He’s running for president.

Here is Frank Gaffney's excellent latest article - the "mainstream" press clearly could not care less about this issue - as it benefits Obama:

Hold Obama Accountable

Center for Security Policy | Jun 11, 2012 By Frank Gaffney, Jr.

Suddenly, congressional leaders of both parties are demanding investigations into serial disclosures of national security secrets on President Obama's watch. The truth of the matter is that we already know what we need to about these leaks. The question is: Will anybody do anything about it?

Of course, the leaks themselves are already out there - prominently featured, for example, on the front pages of the New York Times. We know of the compromise of techniques used to defend our country through cyberwarfare, drone attacks, covert operations and what turned out to be other nations' successful penetration of terrorist cells.

We also know that, in every case, the leakers' handiwork portrayed Barack Obama as a highly effective, decisive, muscular and hands-on Commander-in-Chief. Sadly, the President's overall record shows him to have been anything but, hence the need to pump up his street creds as part of the reelection campaign.

If the damage done for what are, on their face, nakedly political purposes were not so serious, the President's remark last week that he finds "offensive" suggestions that "his White House" could have been responsible would be hilarious. Yet, it seems certain that his Justice Department's investigation will shed no helpful light on the degree of involvement by the Executive Office of the President or, in case he was parsing his words deliberately, the culpability of those who work for him elsewhere in the government. At a minimum, that will certainly be true between now and the November election.

As former federal prosecutor-turned-bestselling author Andrew McCarthy has observed (http://pjmedia.com/andrewmccarthy/2012/06/09/latest-in-leak-farce-the-special-counsel-folly/), Attorney General Eric Holder has jujitsued legislators' demands for a special prosecutor into a review by two U.S. Attorneys that will not only take, in all likelihood, a year or more to complete. Worse yet, their investigation will also be used as a pretext to thwart congressional inquiries into the leaks for the duration of that probe.

This is all the more ridiculous in light of what we already know: People working for Barack Obama have been talking to the media. Some, like longtime Democratic political operative and current National Security Advisor to the President Tom Donilon, have actually allowed themselves to be named as sources.

In other cases, the leakers are part of a very small universe, making a swift and rigorous investigation manageable. For instance, some of the leaks were attributed to officials among the presumably quite restricted number of subordinates who participate in highly classified meetings with Mr. Obama to target terrorists for assassination. One of these turns out to be none other than presidential campaign strategist David Axelrod. It really should not take long to ferret out who among this small group said what on an off-the-record basis.

More importantly, the bottom line is also clear: President Obama is the beneficiary of the spin associated with these leaks, not the American people. And that truly is offensive.

Unfortunately, the same can be said of a number of other actions for which the President can - and must - be held directly accountable. These include, for example:

President Obama's deliberate and far-reaching unilateral disarmament of both U.S. conventional and nuclear forces through budgetary actions and malign neglect.President Obama's embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood - bringing them to power in the Mideast and encouraging their efforts to insinuate shariah here. In fact, Mr. Donilon's deputy, Dennis McDonough, was in Qatar last week meeting with senior operatives of America's two most prominent Brotherhood front groups, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), toward that end. We also just learned that his administration has had "hundreds of meetings" with CAIR.President Obama's buying time for Iran to complete its decades-long drive to acquire nuclear weapons and eviscerating the U.S. missile defenses needed to protect against that growing threat.President Obama's alienating of Israel, Poland, the Czech Republic, Honduras and other allies in the vain hope of currying favor with their foes, and ours.President Obama's encouraging other adversaries, from Russia to China to North Korea to Chavismo in our hemisphere, thanks to the weakness and irresolution that have characterized his policies to date and that his team now feels the need to obscure with heavy spinning of the leaked secrets. And,President Obama's diminishing of our sovereignty, notably by trying to ram through the Senate the Law of the Sea Treaty - the subject of two more hearings this week in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, including the first in which opponents have been allowed to testify, led by former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.Despite the likelihood that the American people will not learn who has been responsible for the damage done to our security through the serial leaks of highly classified information until well after November 6th - if then, they are on notice about his priorities: Emboldening our enemies, undermining our friends and diminishing our country. We simply cannot afford four more years of unaccountable and dangerous malpractice on the part of a Commander-in-Chief.

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. is President of the Center for Security Policy (www.SecureFreedom.org), a columnist for the Washington Times and host of the nationally syndicated program, Secure Freedom Radio, heard in Washington weeknights at 9:00 p.m. on WRC 1260 AM.

Logged

"You have enemies? Good. That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

Obama losing support among Blacks in NC! Welcome back to the party of Lincoln my fellow Americans!

Save the country for all of us. Now if only my fellow Jews who are crazy liberal Democrats would start to wake up then this country will not go the way of Europe.

No wonder the Dems are panicking.

The recently offered proof that Bamster WAS in the Socialist Party and he lied about it says it all. He absolutely does despise this country and his saying the private sector is doing "fine" is absolutely not a gaff and absolutely is consistent with his political thought.

Friday, 08 June 2012 12:11 Obama Belonged to Radical Socialist "New Party" in 1996 Written by Bruce Walker font size decrease font size increase font size Print Email Stanley Kurtz, in his June 7 article "Obama's Third-Party History" for National Review Online, reports that Barack Obama’s connection to far-left radicals is much more recent that had been previously thought. On January 11, 1996, Kurtz notes, Obama joined the New Party, a radical socialist political movement deeply opposed to capitalism and of the opinion that the Democratic Party was far too moderate. The New Party sought to transform America into the sort of socialist democracy that is common in Europe.

Perhaps more importantly, Kurtz notes that when he first raised this issue in National Review a few weeks before the 2008 presidential election, the Obama campaign dismissed his story as a “crackpot smear,” firmly maintaining that their candidate had belonged to only one political party his whole life — the Democratic Party. On the Obama campaign's “Fight the Smears” website Carol Harwell stated: “Barack did not solicit or seek the New Party endorsement for the state senate in 1995.”

Kurtz bases his proof of Obama’s membership in the New Party on documents obtained from the Illinois ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) records at the Wisconsin Historical Society. Obama also signed a contract, Kurtz reveals, in which he promised that while in office he would publicly support and associate himself with the New Party. Kurtz quotes from the January 11, 1996 minutes of the Chicago chapter of the New Party:

Barack Obama, candidate for State Senate in the 13th Legislative District, gave a statement to the membership and answered questions. He signed the New Party "Candidate Contract" and requested an endorsement from the New Party. He also joined the New Party.

The National Review Online article notes that the Chicago chapter of the New Party listed Obama as a party member beginning in early 1997.

Kurtz then identifies several different threads that tie Barack Obama to radical Marxism, which include these facts:

• His father wrote a paper which advocated 100% taxation of the rich, communal ownership of land and confiscation of private property, and penned an article in Kenya entitled “The Problems Facing Our Socialism”;

• His mother was a Communist sympathizer who had been described as a “fellow traveler” while she was alive, whose teachers at Mercer Island High School forced students to read the Communist Manifesto;

• His parents met in a Russian language class;

• His mentor was known Communist Party member Frank Marshall Davis and in Hawaii from 1971 to 1979, Davis treated Obama like a son;

• His brother Roy Obama is a Marxist, and also a radical Muslim;

• His cousin Odinga is also a Marxist and a radical Muslim who seeks to establish Shariah courts in Kenya;

• He attended a socialist conference at Copper Union;

• He was hand picked by Illinois State Senator Alice Palmer to succeed her, and Palmer attended the 27th Communist Party Congress in the Soviet Union;

• His campaign for the Illinois State Senate was organized by avowed Marxists Bill Ayers (pictured above) and Bernadette Dorhn.

The evidence which Kurtz (and others) have assembled to show the deep immersion of Barack Obama in Marxism is overwhelming. The latest proof, his membership as recently as 15 years ago in the radical socialist New Party, shows his Marxist upbringing remained with him and, crucially, that he has concealed that information from Americans.

Obama's grandfather tortured by the British? A fantasy (like most of the President’s own memoir)By TOBY HARNDENPUBLISHED: 17:15 EST, 19 June 2012

A new biography of Barack Obama has established that his grandfather was not, as is related in the President’s own memoir, detained by the British in Kenya and found that claims that he was tortured were a fabrication.'Barack Obama: The Story' by David Maraniss catalogues dozens of instances in which Obama deviated significantly from the truth in his book 'Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance'. The 641-page book punctures the carefully-crafted narrative of Obama’s life.One of the enduring myths of Obama’s ancestry is that his paternal grandfather Hussein Onyango Obama, who served as a cook in the British Army, was imprisoned in 1949 by the British for helping the anti-colonial Mau Mau rebels and held for several months.

Family tree: Barack Obama (centre) with his maternal grandparents Stanley Armour Dunham, (left) and Madelyn Dunham in New York City in the 1980sObama’s step-grandmother Sarah, Onyango wife, who is still living, is quoted in the future President’s memoir, as saying: ‘One day, the white man’s askaris came to take Onyango away, and he was placed in a detention camp.

More...Michelle Obama savages the pursuit of 'fat paychecks and nice offices' (despite her past life as a high-flying corporate lawyer)Revealed: Michelle Obama's WHITE distant cousins... and how the First Lady's great-great-great grandmother had a relationship with a slave owner's son‘But he had been in the camp for over six months, and when he returned to Alego he was very thin and dirty. He had difficulty walking, and his head was full of lice. He was so ashamed, he refused to enter his house or tell us what happened.’In a 2008 interview, Sarah Obama claimed that he was ‘whipped every morning and evening’ by the British. ‘They would sometimes squeeze his testicles with metal rods. They also pierced his nails and buttocks with a sharp pin, with his hands and legs tied together. He was lucky to survive. Some of his fellow inmates were mutilated with castration pliers and beaten to death with clubs.’But Maraniss, who researched Obama’s life in Kenya, Indonesia, Hawaii and the mainland United States, found that there were ‘no remaining records of any detention, imprisonment, or trial of Hussein Onyango Obama’. He interviewed five people who knew Obama’s grandfather, who died in 1979, who ‘doubted the story or were certain it did not happen’.

Fabricated?: 'Barack Obama: The Story' by David Maraniss catalogues dozens of instances in which Obama deviated significantly from the truth in his bookThis undermines the received wisdom that Obama’s grandfather was a victim of oppression, an assumption that has in turn fuelled theories that Obama harbours an animus towards Britain based on a deeply-rooted rage about the way Onyango was treated.John Ndalo Aguk, who worked with Onyango before the alleged imprisonment and was in touch with him weekly afterwards said he 'knew nothing' about any detention and would have noticed if he had gone missing for several months.Zablon Okatch, who worked with Onyango as a servant to American diplomats after the supposed incarceration, said: ‘Hussein was never jailed. I know that for a fact. It would have been difficult for him to get a job with a white family, let alone a diplomat, if he once served in jail.’Charles Oluoch, whose father was adopted by Onyango, said that ‘he did not have any trouble with the government in any way'.Dick Opar, a relative by marriage to Onyango and a senior Kenyan police official, gave what Maraniss judged to be the most authoritative word. ‘People make up stories,’ he said. ‘If you get arrested, you say it was the fight for independence, but they are arrested for another thing.‘I would have known. I would have known. If he was in Kamiti Prison for only a day, even if for a day, I would have known.’Maraniss also casts a sceptical eye on Obama’s grandmother’s tales of racism in Kansas, doubting whether she was ever chastised for addressing a black janitor as ‘Mister’ or ridiculed for playing with a black girl.Obama himself, Maraniss finds, deliberately distorted elements of his own life to fit into a racial narrative. The author writes that Obama presents himself in his memoir as ‘blacker and more disaffected’ than he really was.The memoir ‘accentuates characters drawn from black acquaintances who played lesser roles his real life but could be used to advance a line of thought, while leaving out or distorting the actions of friends who happened to be white’.

Researched: David Maraniss (left) found that there were 'no remaining records of any detention, imprisonment, or trial of Hussein Onyango Obama', the President's grandfatherIn the forward to his memoir, Obama wrote that ‘for the sake of compression, some of the characters that appear are composites of people I’ve known, and some events appear out of precise chronology’.But Maraniss writes that Obama’s book is ‘literature and memoir, not history and autobiography’ and concludes: ‘The character creations and rearrangements of the book are not merely a matter of style, devices of compression, but are also substantive.’Writing about his schooldays, Obama created a friend called Regina, a symbol of the authentic black American experience that Obama yearns for.Maraniss found, however, that Regina was based on Caroline Boss, a white student leader at Occidental College. Regina was the name of Boss’s Swiss grandmother.The book also notes that Obama removed two white roommates in Los Angeles and New York from his story. Obama himself told Maraniss in a 90-minute interview that a racial incident involving a New York girlfriend had in fact happened in Chicago.A tale of the father of Obama’s Indonesian stepfather Soewarno Martodihardjo being killed by Dutch soldiers as he fought for Indonesian independence turns out to be ‘a concocted myth in almost all respects’, Maraniss finds.According to the book, both Obama’s father and his paternal grandfather were abusive towards women and Maraniss finds that Obama’s story that he was abandoned by his father when he was two was false – in fact, Obama’s mother fled to Washington state a year earlier, possibly because she was being beaten.A character in Obama’s memoir called Ray, portrayed as a symbol of young blackness, is in fact based on a fellow pupil who was half Japanese, part native American and part black and was not a close friend.‘In the memoir Barry and Ray, could be heard complaining about how rich white haole [upper class white Hawaiian] girls would never date them. In fact, neither had much trouble in that regard.’Obama notes of his own grandfather that he was apt to create ‘history to conform with the image he wished for himself’. Maraniss, who also wrote an acclaimed biography of Bill Clinton, suggests that throughout his life Obama himself, following on from his forbears on both sides, has done the same thing.

Well - I'd qualify that by saying "everyone who knows anything about "Dreams From My Father." The minority of the American public that is informed. The fact remains that the mainstream media remains to this day completely uninterested in reporting on any of this. Charlie Rose and Tom Brokaw famously opined that "There is a lot we don't know about Obama." They fail to mention that they haven't even attempted to do any investigative reporting to find out. To them the only item of importance is that Obama has dark skin and he is our first "black President." Nothing else matters.

I might add that several experts in textual analysis have examined "Dreams From My Father," and compared it to verified writings of Obama, and concluded that there is NO WAY Obama wrote that book. The most likely candidate (with whom the style most closely matches) is William Ayers. What a surprise that whole sections are fabrications designed to advance the fraud that is Barack Obama!

Logged

"You have enemies? Good. That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

I am not a fan of Jimmy Carter but at least he is consistent. This is nothing less than REMARKABLE that a Democrat would come out and say this in an election year. Not a peep from the rest of the left wing media to my knowledge. If this were W doing the drones they would be screaming bloody **murder** like they did over much less stuff - water boarding three mass murderers!

****......Jimmy Carter Accuses U.S. of 'Widespread Abuse of Human Rights'By Amy Bingham | ABC News – 23 hrs ago......Jimmy Carter Accuses U.S. of 'Widespread …....A former U.S. president is accusing the current president of sanctioning the "widespread abuse of human rights" by authorizing drone strikes to kill suspected terrorists.

Jimmy Carter, America's 39 th president, denounced the Obama administration for "clearly violating" 10 of the 30 articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, writing in a New York Times op-ed on Monday that the "United States is abandoning its role as the global champion of human rights."

"Instead of making the world safer, America's violation of international human rights abets our enemies and alienates our friends," Carter wrote.

While the total number of attacks from unmanned aircraft, or drones, and the resulting casualties are murky, the New America Foundation estimates that in Pakistan alone 265 drone strikes have been executed since January 2009 . Those strikes have killed at least 1,488 people, at least 1,343 of them considered militants, the foundation estimates based on news reports and other sources.

In addition to the drone strikes, Carter criticized the current president for keeping the Guantanamo Bay detention center open, where prisoners "have been tortured by waterboarding more than 100 times or intimidated with semiautomatic weapons, power drills or threats to sexually assault their mothers."

The former president blasted the government for allowing "unprecedented violations of our rights to privacy through warrantless wiretapping and government mining of our electronic communications."

Want more off-the-cuff politics? Check out OTUS on Facebook and follow us on Twitter @OTUSNews.

He also condemned recent legislation that gives the president the power to detain suspected terrorists indefinitely, although a federal judge blocked the law from taking effect for any suspects not affiliated with the September 11 terrorist attacks.

"This law violates the right to freedom of expression and to be presumed innocent until proved guilty, two other rights enshrined in the declaration," Carter said.

While Carter never mentioned Obama by name, he called out "our government" and "the highest authorities in Washington," and urged "concerned citizens" to "persuade Washington to reverse course and regain moral leadership."

A new Gallup poll shows that 11% of Americans think Obama is a Muslim, and the leftist media just can't figure out why anyone would get that idea. Slate concluded that it must be because of "his exotic name and background, the color of his skin, or (most likely) some combination of the two." But in reality, the reason why people think Obama is a Muslim is because of how he acts.

Why do people believe that Barack Obama is a Muslim? Here's why: after the Muslim Brotherhood won the Egyptian presidency, the military moved to curb the president's powers in order to stave off sharia rule in Egypt. But then Obama warned the military that they better hand over power quickly, or Egypt would lose billions in U.S. aid.

It wasn't enough that Obama invited the Muslim Brotherhood to his submission speech in Cairo in June 2009, despite the fact that the group was banned at that time for obvious reasons: they wanted to install a sharia government, and the draconian, barbaric code of sharia, in Egypt. It wasn't enough that after he invited the Brotherhood to his speech; he had officials in his administration meeting with this Islamic supremacist group. It wasn't enough that he abandoned the true freedom movement, when the women of Iran and Persians and Zoroastrians rose up after 30 years of oppressive sharia rule. Obama spit on them and left them to die. They met bullets with bare flesh and broken bricks.

It was a squandered historical moment: by supporting the demonstrators in Iran, Obama could have done much to remove the head of the snake of Hezb'allah, Hamas, the Shi'ites fighting American soldiers in Iraq, the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the Shia agitation in Bahrain. Obama could have saved the free world and gone down in history as one of the magnificent heroes for good. But that is not who he is. He is a tool, a malevolent subversive who managed to seize the most powerful office in the world with the PR expertise of the enemedia.

Obama's war on the good continued. It wasn't enough that he abandoned Mubarak, our 30-year ally in Egypt, the first Muslim country to make peace with the Jewish people despite the Jew-hatred mandated in the Quran. It wasn't enough that he threw our great friend and ally out with both hands, a man who for all his undeniable faults was the most liberal of reformers in the Muslim countries in that region. And here we are with the Brotherhood victorious, and what does the leader of the free world do? He threatens to withhold all U.S. aid to anyone who stops the Muslim Brotherhood from taking power.

Does he threaten to withhold aid from the Muslims in Gaza who daily talk about their desire to destroy Israel and annihilate the Jews, and who glory in the murders of young families with their children, and lob rockets into civilian areas so that the people there have to live in terror going to work and to school? Of course not -- he increases the aid to the annihilationists who thirst for genocide in their mad Islamic Jew-hatred.

And the media wonders why so many people think Obama is a Muslim? Obama has banned the word "jihad" and any discussion of Islam from State, Defense, and Justice Department vernacular and counter-terrorism materials. He is denying that jihad is the enemy, while his Justice Department acts as the de facto legal arm for Muslim Brotherhood groups in America. And the Obama administration has held hundreds of meetings with U.S. Hamas front groups.

Obama is withholding evidence in the Fort Hood jihad that has held up the court case of the single worst act of war on a military base in U.S. history. The Obama administration refers to the Fort Hood jihad as "workplace violence." The trial of the Fort Hood jihadi (who was screaming "Allahu akbar" as he mowed down 13 U.S. soldiers) has been delayed repeatedly because Major Hasan came in sporting the religious beard of the devout Muslim.

The appeaser-in-chief excoriates America for Guantánamo, which provides its enemy combatants with Korans, laptops, duck à l'orange, and my, oh my, the inhumanity of it all. He flogged and beat us with his wet waterboarding noodle. He cried for Khalid Sheik Muhammad's nose -- despite the fact that the enhanced interrogations saved the lives of thousands in Los Angeles. Three mass murderers were waterboarded (along with scores of CIA and military folks), and Obama was shocked, shocked, I tell ya.

Obama has made several Muslim Brotherhood appointments to key high-level, sensitive positions. Obama has told us time and time again that "we will never be at war with Islam" (even if Muslims are at war with us). He has removed the sanctions covering religious freedom from the State Department's Country Reports on Human Rights -- and it just so happens that the worst offenders against religious freedom are Muslim countries.

In June 2010 I wrote an article containing a long list of the things Obama had done since becoming president that made people think he was a Muslim. I wrote: "Obama took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, and yet whether he is a Muslim or not, he has undeniably gone around the world promoting Islam and Sharia (Islamic law)." Since then, he has continued to do so. He keeps fueling the impression that he is a Muslim by his actions, which have been consistent. He killed Osama and Awlaki? Sure...but he has never moved against pro-sharia Islamic supremacists. Quite the contrary.

By their fruits ye shall know them, and so we know him. The left media should stop beating people up for being logical.

Pamela Geller is the publisher of AtlasShrugs.com and the author of the WND Books title Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance.

Another story that has received virtually zero coverage in the mainstream news media - even on Fox News Channel. The public needs to know this:

Obama’s Third-Party History

By Stanley Kurtz - National Review Online.June 7, 2012

On the evening of January 11, 1996, while Mitt Romney was in the final years of his run as the head of Bain Capital, Barack Obama formally joined the New Party, which was deeply hostile to the mainstream of the Democratic party and even to American capitalism. In 2008, candidate Obama deceived the American public about his potentially damaging tie to this third party. The issue remains as fresh as today’s headlines, as Romney argues that Obama is trying to move the United States toward European-style social democracy, which was precisely the New Party’s goal.

In late October 2008, when I wrote here at National Review Online that Obama had been a member of the New Party, his campaign sharply denied it, calling my claim a “crackpot smear.” Fight the Smears, an official Obama-campaign website, staunchly maintained that “Barack has been a member of only one political party, the Democratic Party.” I rebutted this, but the debate was never taken up by the mainstream press.

Recently obtained evidence from the updated records of Illinois ACORN at the Wisconsin Historical Society now definitively establishes that Obama was a member of the New Party. He also signed a “contract” promising to publicly support and associate himself with the New Party while in office.

Minutes of the meeting on January 11, 1996, of the New Party’s Chicago chapter read as follows:

Barack Obama, candidate for State Senate in the 13th Legislative District, gave a statement to the membership and answered questions. He signed the New Party “Candidate Contract” and requested an endorsement from the New Party. He also joined the New Party.

Consistent with this, a roster of the Chicago chapter of the New Party from early 1997 lists Obama as a member, with January 11, 1996, indicated as the date he joined.

Knowing that Obama disguised his New Party membership helps make sense of his questionable handling of the 2008 controversy over his ties to ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now). During his third debate with John McCain, Obama said that the “only” involvement he’d had with ACORN was to represent the group in a lawsuit seeking to compel Illinois to implement the National Voter Registration Act, or motor-voter law. The records of Illinois ACORN and its associated union clearly contradict that assertion, as I show in my political biography of the president, Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism.

Why did Obama deny his ties to ACORN? The group was notorious in 2008 for thug tactics, fraudulent voter registrations, and its role in popularizing risky subprime lending. Admitting that he had helped to fund ACORN’s voter-registration efforts and train some of their organizers would doubtless have been an embarrassment but not likely a crippling blow to his campaign. So why not simply confess the tie and make light of it? The problem for Obama was ACORN’s political arm, the New Party.

The revelation in 2008 that Obama had joined an ACORN-controlled, leftist third party could have been damaging indeed, and coming clean about his broader work with ACORN might easily have exposed these New Party ties. Because the work of ACORN and the New Party often intersected with Obama’s other alliances, honesty about his ties to either could have laid bare the entire network of his leftist political partnerships.

Although Obama is ultimately responsible for deceiving the American people in 2008 about his political background, he got help from his old associates. Each of the two former political allies who helped him to deny his New Party membership during campaign ’08 was in a position to know better.

The Fight the Smears website quoted Carol Harwell, who managed Obama’s 1996 campaign for the Illinois senate: “Barack did not solicit or seek the New Party endorsement for state senator in 1995.” Drawing on her testimony, Fight the Smears conceded that the New Party did support Obama in 1996 but denied that Obama had ever joined, adding that “he was the only candidate on the ballot in his race and never solicited the endorsement.”

We’ve seen that this is false. Obama formally requested New Party endorsement, signed the candidate contract, and joined the party. Is it conceivable that Obama’s own campaign manager could have been unaware of this? The notion is implausible. And the documents make Harwell’s assertion more remarkable still.

The New Party had a front group called Progressive Chicago, whose job was to identify candidates that the New Party and its sympathizers might support. Nearly four years before Obama was endorsed by the New Party, both he and Harwell joined Progressive Chicago and began signing public letters that regularly reported on the group’s meetings. By prominently taking part in Progressive Chicago activities, Obama was effectively soliciting New Party support for his future political career (as was Harwell, on Obama’s behalf). So Harwell’s testimony is doubly false.

When the New Party controversy broke out, just about the only mainstream journalist to cover it was Politico’s Ben Smith, whose evident purpose was to dismiss it out of hand. He contacted Obama’s official spokesman Ben LaBolt, who claimed that his candidate “was never a member” of the New Party. And New Party co-founder and leader Joel Rogers told Smith, “We didn’t really have members.” But a line in the New Party’s official newsletter explicitly identified Obama as a party member. Rogers dismissed that as mere reference to “the fact that the party had endorsed him.”

This is nonsense. I exposed the falsity of Rogers’s absurd claim, and Smith’s credulity in accepting it, in 2008 (here and here). And in Radical-in-Chief I took on Rogers’s continuing attempts to justify it. The recently uncovered New Party records reveal how dramatically far from the truth Rogers’s statement has been all along.

In a memo dated January 29, 1996, Rogers, writing as head of the New Party Interim Executive Council, addressed “standing concerns regarding existing chapter development and activity, the need for visibility as well as new members.” So less than three weeks after Obama joined the New Party, Rogers was fretting about the need for new members. How, then, could Rogers assert in 2008 that his party “didn’t really have members”? Internal documents show that the entire leadership of the New Party, both nationally and in Chicago, was practically obsessed with signing up new members, from its founding moments until it dissolved in the late 1990s.

In 2008, after I called Rogers out on his ridiculous claim that his party had no members, he explained to Ben Smith that “we did have regular supporters whom many called ‘members,’ but it just meant contributing regularly, not getting voting rights or other formal power in NP governance.” This is also flatly contradicted by the newly uncovered records.

At just about the time Obama joined the New Party, the Chicago chapter was embroiled in a bitter internal dispute. A party-membership list is attached to a memo in which the leaders of one faction consider a scheme to disqualify potential voting members from a competing faction, on the grounds that those voters had not renewed their memberships. The factional leaders worried that their opponents would legitimately object to this tactic, since a mailing that called for members to renew hadn’t been properly sent out. At any rate, the memo clearly demonstrates that, contrary to Rogers’s explanation, membership in the New Party entailed the right to vote on matters of party governance. In fact, Obama’s own New Party endorsement, being controversial, was thrown open to a members’ vote on the day he joined the party.

Were Harwell and Rogers deliberately lying in order to protect Obama and deceive the public? Readers can decide for themselves. Yet it is clear that Obama, through his official spokesman, Ben LaBolt, and the Fight the Smears website, was bent on deceiving the American public about a matter whose truth he well knew.

The documents reveal that the New Party’s central aim was to move the United States steadily closer to European social democracy, a goal that Mitt Romney has also attributed to Obama. New Party leaders disdained mainstream Democrats, considering them tools of business, and promised instead to create a partnership between elected officials and local community organizations, with the goal of socializing the American economy to an unprecedented degree.

The party’s official “statement of principles,” which candidates seeking endorsement from the Chicago chapter were asked to support, called for a “peaceful revolution” and included redistributive proposals substantially to the left of the Democratic party.

To get a sense of the ideology at play, consider that the meeting at which Obama joined the party opened with the announcement of a forthcoming event featuring the prominent socialist activist Frances Fox Piven. The Chicago New Party sponsored a luncheon with Michael Moore that same year.

I have more to say on the New Party’s ideology and program, Obama’s ties to the party, and the relevance of all this to the president’s campaign for reelection. See the forthcoming issue of National Review.

In the meantime, let us see whether a press that let candidate Obama off the hook in 2008 — and that in 2012 is obsessed with the president’s youthful love letters — will now refuse to report that President Obama once joined a leftist third party, and that he hid that truth from the American people in order to win the presidency.

— Stanley Kurtz is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. A longer version of this article appears in the forthcoming June 25 issue of National Review.

Logged

"You have enemies? Good. That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

The only news story I could find in Google News about 'Kenyan Birth Records Found' was a 2009 Huffington Post story about a Kenyan forgery.

Looks to me like they blur the image - I can't read it it. And no link.

After they say it is proved they go on with a different argument, Barack Sr. didn't declare he had a son. That isn't conclusive of anything.

We need Barack Obama on the ballot in order to defeat him and his policies. There is no shortcut.

If Democrats had to replace him on the ticket between now and the election, it would be the perfect storm, wet dream, shiny object extravaganza for them. They could put a new name on the ballot not directly tied to the current economic record - and you know who she would be... (

The birth certificate issue is a moot point in my opinion now, and really has been since Obama was elected. It will be of historical significance if it can be proven he was not born in the U.S. However, I have to disagree that putting Hillary on the ticket in his place would necessarily translate to a win for the Democrats. I think the die has been cast, and there are enough people who understand that the current economic disaster is directly tied not only to Obama, but Democrat Party policies in general. I predict a big win for Romney - but not because there is any real enthusiasm for him per se, rather voters will be voting AGAINST current policies. We still must fight all the way to the election to get Romney in, and then continue to pressure him and Congress to enact constitutionally conservative policies. It won't be easy - our work will have only begun if Romney wins. But - the alternative is the end of America as we know it.

Logged

"You have enemies? Good. That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

On the debunk continued, Obama Sr. didn't leave the US in 1961, Stanley Ann wouldn't go meet his family alone - pregnant, and nothing is anywhere near Hawaii for travel by air, land or sea. Looks like you could get a flight today for about $2600 with 2-3 stops and 35 hours fly time each way. Quite a bit longer in 1961. The certificate, BTW, was for one generic US baby born in Africa-other, not an Obama born in the Kenyan region .

I'm not saying HRC would win at either position, just that they are the ones in need of changing the dynamic of the race.

Not to pile on, but while 1 more term of Obama is unthinkable, Hillary is eligible for 2 more terms, don't get that started. " Aaaaccckkk!!! "

Defeat this man the old fashioned way and let Hillary age gracefully on the sidelines.

It matters because Barack Obama sold himself to America as the multi-cultural ideal, a man who stood above politics. His father was a goat herder from Kenya, so he would bring people together, so the story went. As a result, the public perceived Barack Obama as a nice man with an inspiring family story.

However, as shown in Dreams from My Real Father, Barack Obama in fact has a deeply disturbing family background, which he intentionally hid, in order to obscure a Marxist political foundation. While voters will overlook some fudging by politicians, promoting a false family background to hide a Marxist agenda irreconcilable with American values is a totally unacceptable manipulation of the electorate.

At age 18, Barack Obama admittedly arrived at Occidental College a committed revolutionary Marxist. Based on Obama’s own accounts, there can be no doubt that Frank Marshall Davis, a Communist Party USA Propagandist, and former Soviet Agent, indoctrinated Obama with a Marxist world view during his formative years. This is a known phenomenon amongst the radical left, referred to as “Red Diaper Babies” or “hand-me-down Marxism.” Much of the leadership of the SDS and Weather Underground were children of Communist Party USA members, including Katherine Boudin, Jeff Jones, and many more. David Axelrod is also a “Red Diaper Baby”, his mother was a Red journalist.

The Journalist’s Creed

Obama’s election was not a sudden political phenomenon. It was the culmination of an American socialist movement that Frank Marshall Davis nurtured in Chicago and Hawaii, and has been quietly infiltrating the US economy, universities, and media for decades.

As I speak today, here at the National Press Club in Washington DC, what strikes me as most disturbing is that any one of the hundreds of American journalists in this building could win the Pulitzer Prize, just by writing about the evidence presented in Dreams from My Real Father.

So today, here at the National Press Club, a great American Institution, I would like to recall the Journalist’s Creed. The Journalist’s Creed is a code of ethics for the profession of Journalism. It is posted on the wall in the lobby of this building in bronze. It was written by Walter Williams in 1906, when he founded the Missouri School of Journalism. The Journalist’s Creed stipulates:

1) That journalists must be public trustees with the full measure of responsibility to the public

2) That accuracy and fairness are fundamental to good journalism

3) That a single standard of truth must prevail for all

4) That suppression of the news is indefensible

5) And that journalism must be independent, unbiased by personal opinion, and always unafraid.

I Accuse

I accuse all major American Television networks and most Cable News networks of gross violations of the Journalists Creed.

I accuse ABC, NBC, and CBS network news Divisions of violating the public trust by refusing to cover my documentary film, and for ignoring all the revelations about Obama’s background that other researchers have produced.

I accuse MSNBC of an intentional and often vile campaign of lies and misrepresentations to protect Barack Obama’s false narrative.

I accuse Newsmax.com of censorship and suppression of the news. On May 2 of this year, I paid Newsmax $ 4,350, in advance, for an advertising campaign. They pulled it at the last second. “Why?” They said it was because they wanted “to move to the Center”.

I accuse all leftist website-based news organizations of intentional bias – like Talkingpointsmemo.com. On April 26th, they requested a review copy of Dreams from My Real Father, which we provided, but instead they illegally copied parts of the film and put them on YouTube, and wrote that now people don’t need to buy the film.

I also accuse all the mainstream print media, like the Washington Post, the New York Times, Newsweek, Time Magazine, all their ilk, of intentionally suppressing the truth about Barack Obama’s history and agenda and refusal to cover my findings.

The public looks to all of the news organizations in this building, the National Press Club, for truth. However, an astounding number, almost all of them, have failed to live up to the Journalist’s Creed, and thus failed in their responsibility to the public. Only a very few news organizations, like WorldNet Daily, Drudge Report, USA Survival and a handful of independent journalists like Jack Cashill, have done their jobs as journalists – with courage and honesty.

Report the Truth Now

My message to the journalists, then, here at the National Press Club is:

Don’t suppress the truth, it is vitally important.

America needs a truthful press, unafraid.

America is worth it!

Take any risk to expose the truth, about a candidate or even a sitting President.

And what is the truth?

- All evidence points to Barack Obama building his political career upon a fairy tale. There was no Obama family, he is not the son of a Kenyan goat herder.

- All evidence points to a sham marriage to cover an illicit affair between Ann Dunham and Frank Marshall Davis.

- All evidence indicates that Barack Obama was raised and indoctrinated by Frank Marshall Davis, a Communist Party USA Propagandist, during his formative years.

- All evidence indicates Barack Obama has pursued the Dreams from his Real Father.

And what are those dreams?

They are the forced imposition of a classic Stalinist Marxist agenda upon America at home and abroad.

And what is the history of Marxism?

Ladies and Gentlemen, the results are already in!

Marxism leads to economic ruin, and the biological destruction of the populations in societies that have employed the Marxist model.

American Journalists have a key role to play in revealing the truth, and they must do so immediately without further delay. Obama’s style is to minimize, misdirect, and outright lie about damaging information about his past. America needs honest journalism now more than ever, so the public can understand what Obama means by “change” and “fundamentally transforming America.”

I call upon all news organizations and journalists in this building, the National Press Club, to live up to the Journalists creed. Nothing is more important at this late hour – not playing it safe, not worrying about advertising contracts for medications, nothing. The future of America is at stake.

Obama and the Subprime Mortgage Crisis

Not only does the media refuse to look at Obama’s personal and political foundations, they refuse to even look at simple facts of the current campaign. For example, when speaking of the economy, Obama says:

“My opponent wants to go back to the policies which got us into this mess.” and

“The Free Market doesn’t work”

A journalist only has to recite simple facts:

1 – The major cause of the economic meltdown was the subprime mortgage debacle, and Obama was in on it, on the ground floor.

2 – Obama was asked about his role with Acorn during the 2008 campaign. He was not truthful when he said his law firm only represented Acorn to sue the State of Illinois to implement the Motor-Voter Act – and recall that nine of the 9/11 hijackers used this to register to vote, allowing them to get US identification.

2 – In 1995 Obama also represented Acorn in suing Citibank, forcing them to lower their lending standards to lend to minorities even if they were unqualified borrowers. Acorn immediately took this model to HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros, who convinced President Clinton to require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to force all banks across the system to lower their lending standards. This Acorn model, that Obama helped create, crashed the economy 12 years later, not the free markets.

This was all by design. It was part of the socialist strategy taught at the socialist conferences Obama attended in the early 1980’s, to use minorities and the poor to “collapse capitalism”. “Problem solving” and “fair play” were the new code words that socialists learned. The strategy was to move the Democratic party to the far left, and embrace socialism as their natural ideology. Obama now uses terms like “helping middle class families”. Simply speaking, socialist economies do not have a middle class! They have just one big lower class with a handful of political elites controlling the wealth.

Going Direct to the American People

I have received hundreds of emails from concerned Americans. The following is from a Vietnam Veteran:

Dear Mr. Gilbert,

I was very mad after I watched your DVD. You have cracked the code surrounding Obama and the Marxist mission he is on.

We are the verge of losing the constitution. Freedom and liberty are in jeopardy. As a Vietnam war veteran, I ask, what did I fight for?

Please, can you get this information out to millions? We Americans need it. It is our only hope!

Bern Nilson

Denver, Colorado

Because of great Americans like Bern, and because almost all levels of the media are suppressing the information in Dreams from My Real Father, I am announcing today that my distribution company is planning to send a free copy of the DVD in the US mail direct to millions of households. The process has already begun. Within three weeks, hundreds of thousands of DVDs will be mailed across the United States until every American sees this DVD and understands the deadly Marxist dreams Obama has for us, from his real father, Frank Marshall Davis.

Again, for any journalist in this building, here at the National Press Club, a Pulitzer Prize can be yours, just report the facts.

Please visit the film website, there is the breaking news every week, and you can also order the DVD at obamasrealfather.com

Thank you, and God Bless America.

« Last Edit: July 24, 2012, 10:00:37 PM by objectivist1 »

Logged

"You have enemies? Good. That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

I see why they call him a mentor, not his father. Barack Sr. was an economist I thought, not a goat herder. Yes, Barack Jr. came to his leftist views through his mother and presumably whomever she was listening to or hanging with in her own activism, including Davis.

Regarding "Soviet Agent", I believe his file includes photographing Hawaiian coastline but not known exchanges with Soviets.

From Wikipedia:"Frank Marshall Davis knew Barack Obama from as early as 9 or 10, until he left Hawaii for Occidental College in 1978 at the age of 18.

Obama’s grandmother (Toot) and Gramps have an argument over whether Gramps should give Toot a ride to work after she had been threatened at a bus stop by a black panhandler. Obama looks to Frank to sort it out in his mind. (p. 89-91) When Toot is having difficulty convincing the drug-abusing young Obama to apply for college, it is again Frank who is able to convince Obama that college is necessary. (p. 96-98) Frank tells the young Obama “…you may be a well-trained, well-paid nigger, but you’re a nigger just the same.” (p. 97)

Davis told Obama that black people "have a reason to hate [white people)" (Dreams from My Father, p. 91). He also advised the college-bound Obama to "keep your eyes open" and "Stay awake" otherwise he would be "trained" against his own interests. (p. 97) Obama explained how he carried out Davis's advice. "To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets." (p. 100). ------Reading about Davis, I notice the name Vernon Jarret is prominent among the activists, father in law to Valerie Jarret. Reading about Valerie Jarret, there is no indication of a connection to Obama before Valerie hired Michelle instantly upon meeting her and wanted to meet her fiance Barack. Quite a coincidence.